- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:49:54 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 12:18 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: [ . . . ] > >>> I recommend changing this to something weaselly like > >>> > >>> A 303 response to a GET request *may indicate* that the requested > >>> resource > >>> does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by ... > >>> ... > >> Assuming we did want to change it, it would still to be phrased in a way > >> that explains what 303 means, not what it "may" mean... > > > > See above. I don't think much meaning has to be given beyond that you > > get the location of a description. You can leave the 200/303 choice up > > to the server, just as a choice between a 300 and a 200 is up to the > > server. The server just decided. > > I understand that; but the language defining the status codes needs to > be phrased so that it's clear what it means, not what it "may" mean. Then how about: "A 303 response to a GET request indicates either that the requested resource does not have, or that the server chooses not to send, a representation that can be transferred by HTTP . . . " -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:50:31 UTC